I don't think he's a great thinker. He's a great orator/writer, but not a great thinker. His thoughts about atheism are half-baked and incoherent. I bought and read his book, "God is not Great", and that's what made me conclude that it was his ego and not the search for truth that drove him. He was far better as a pseudo-intellectual writer for Vanity Fair, a magazine for the entertainment and consumption of the metro-intellectual classes than he was anything of a serious thinker, philosopher, or even atheist. He was a Trotskyist and an all-round political critic, and that's where he should have remained for he did that best. I found him immensely entertaining and listened and read many of his works -for he had a flair for the English language, it's just that I never found him as serious as he really needed to be. Anyways, his life's fight, to disprove the existence of God, he fought valiantly till the end - though many like him, his ideas as an atheist was not so much based on the search for truth, but based on having a moral problem with the idea of the existence of God. So it's too bad he chose a battle that was much greater than he was capable of, "fighting above his weight", if you will.He was a great thinker. He is missed.
This is a simple example of the confusion of Christopher Hitchens, and how easily he snows people with his use of words.“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”
― Christopher Hitchens
He was such a great debater. I love all the Hitchslap videos on youtube.
So what is "faith" then? I am pretty sure that Hitchens' definition is not the same as whatever yours' is. His use of the term is synonymous with unwarranted belief, in my opinion. I am sure he would use the word differently in a different context; e.g., he would probably agree that he had faith that the sun will come up in the morning (a warranted belief).This is a simple example of the confusion of Christopher Hitchens, and how easily he snows people with his use of words.
While it is true religion has caused horrible catastrophes to happen because it causes people to be more mean, selfish, and stupid, it is not faith that does this. Religion is not faith, he confuses the two; neither is faith belief, for it is belief that suppresses the intellect. Was Hitchens himself confused, or was he simply limited by the English language itself and thereby conferring a meaning he did not intend? If he was not confused about what he was thinking, he meant belief, not faith - but could he be faulted because in English the phrase, "On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that belief causes people to be more mean..." does not make sense.
Faith does not preclude the use of the intellect. In fact, faith requires the use of the intellect, but in context. Imbeciles use their intellect without context and misapply their knowledge. Again, faith, belief and religion, these are all different things. Religion wants us to believe, to not think, to "have faith" in other words. But faith itself is something entirely different.
Or another way to look at normisanas argument;So what is "faith" then? I am pretty sure that Hitchens' definition is not the same as whatever yours' is. His use of the term is synonymous with unwarranted belief, in my opinion. I am sure he would use the word differently in a different context; e.g., he would probably agree that he had faith that the sun will come up in the morning (a warranted belief).
Thank-you!!! So far, brilliant!!!If you want to read a great thinker, here's a book I recommend:
![]()
Which video are you talking about?The problem I have with video #1 is that his interpretation of Christianity and Islam (which he even states the translation he's giving is problematic) are full of truthiness. Excellent skills for a debater, not good for getting information across.





